Beyond identity: Membership norms and regional organization

Abstract

What is a region and how can we best understand a state's eligibility for membership in a regional political community? Scholars have sought to answer these questions in terms of geographic proximity and social-psychological identity, but neither concept can accommodate the contestation and change that characterize the social construction of regions. Instead, this article argues that the limits of regions are defined within regional organizations by member states' governments plus supranational actors deliberating over a common definition of the characteristics that members and potential members are expected to share. The concept of membership norms thus offers powerful insights into how regional communities define who is eligible for membership, how these definitions change over time and the incentives they create for those seeking to promote or block an applicant state. The evolution of the European Union's membership norms since the 1950s illustrates this argument.

Regional standards of membership and enlargement in the EU and ASEAN

“…While I use official RO documents, media reports, and existing academic literature as sources in both parts, the European case draws to a large extent on Thomas' (2006Thomas' ( , 2017 extensive empirical analyses. The cases are instructive because they display certain similarities in that domestic turbulence in prospective new members sparked normative crises during which actors challenged and ultimately revised the respective ROs' original standards of membership, which had been formulated in geographic rather than substantial terms.…”

“…The heated debates about Brexit, Turkey's accession process and a potential suspension of Hungary's and Poland's membership rights are glaring reminders that questions of membership are closely linked to different understandings of regional identity and normative considerations. What is true for the EU applies to regional organizations (ROs) in general; the definition of their boundaries is an existential and inherently problematic and political exercise (Thomas 2017). Decisions over membership are inherently linked to common understanding not just about the geographical extension of a region but also Bwhat it means to be,^say, a European or Southeast Asian state.…”

“…The core assumption of this literature is that ROs embody regional communities, which share certain core norms and values (Thomas 2017). 2 While many scholars working within a constructivist paradigm agree on this tenet, they see different implications for RO enlargement.…”

“…Liberal democratic standards are hardly a cornerstone of regional identity in some other regions, including Southeast Asia. To account for the dynamic and political character of normative community standards, researchers need to move away from the LCT's statist approach focusing on compliance to a social practice perspective, which puts the processes of discursive reproduction and change at the center of analysis (Thomas 2017;Wiener 2004).…”

The normative threat of subtle subversion: the return of ‘Eastern Europe’ as an ontological insecurity trope

“…Steele, this issue). Populism is generally depicted as an eroding force of the normative essence of the contemporary European polity for its targeting of liberal democratic membership norms (Thomas 2017 The historically liminal position of eastern Europe in the political imaginaries of those who have traditionally enjoyed a sense of entitlement to speak and act in the name of Europe has provided a hospitable soil for the wide reading of the recent developments in Central-East Europe through the prism of normative threat for the European project of democracy, unity, and peace. As Victor Turner ([1969] 1995), 108-109) showed in his study of the Ndembu rites, the custodians of the current structure are by definition wary of the transgressive and ordertranscending potential of the liminal communities.…”